In the recent Lehigh County Election for Common Pleas Court Judge, Republican David Ritter leads Democrat Zachary Cohen, by 74 votes.
However, there are 260 Mail-Votes in dispute. These Mail-Votes have signatures, but they are not dated. The Lehigh County Election Board say they are going to count them.
76.7% of the Mail-Votes counted so far in this race, have gone to Cohen. He only needs 65% of the un-dated Mail-Votes to go ahead of Ritter.
Ritter is appealing the Election Board’s decision to count the undated Mail-Votes, but in addition to that, several high-ranking members of the Republican Caucus of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives sent a letter to the members of the Election Board, threatening to remove them from office, if they count the un-dated Mail-Votes. The House members cited Article VI section 4 of the state constitution, which states in its entirety, The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment.
The House members’ letter quotes from a decison by Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Wecht, last year.
But I part ways with the conclusion reflected in the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court (“OAJC”) that a voter’s failure to comply with the statutory requirement that voters date the voter declaration should be overlooked as a “minor irregularity.” This requirement is stated in unambiguously mandatory terms, and nothing in the Election Code suggests that the legislature intended that courts should construe its mandatory language as directory. Thus, in future elections, I would treat the date and sign requirement as mandatory in both particulars, with the omission of either item sufficient without more to invalidate the ballot in question.
Adam Bonin, Cohen’s attorney, argues that the Republican legislators have “offered a *very* selective quoting of Justice Wecht’s controlling concurrence/dissent.”
From the same ruling from which the legislators quoted, Bonin notes that Wecht also wrote –
But I also emphasized that disqualification is appropriate “[s]o long as the Secretary and county boards of elections provide electors with adequate instructions for completing the declaration of the elector—including conspicuous warnings regarding the consequences for failing strictly to adhere” to those requirements. I cannot say with any confidence that even diligent electors were adequately informed as to what was required to avoid the consequence of disqualification in this case.
On his Twitter Account, Bonin shows two different Mail-Ballots. One is from the City of Philadelphia. It has large bold arrows pointing to the place where voters are supposed to sign and date their ballots. And the instructions are in a large bold font. He contrasts the Philadelphia Ballot to the one from Lehigh County, on which there are no arrows calling attention to the date field, and the instructions are in a smaller font.
Bonin also wrote on his Twitter Account –
Maybe you disagree with the Lehigh County Board of Elections, and me. That’s fine. That’s what the legal appeal process is for, and it’s happening. Threatening impeachment because public officials made a factual/legal decision with which you disagree? That’s just wrong.